The
ongoing crises in Syria and Venezuela have been described by
mainstream media as the result of failed leadership. In truth, their
troubles are the result of U.S.-led regime change efforts
masquerading as humanitarian aid to control both nations’ lucrative
oil and gas industries.
by
Whitney Webb
Part
3 - U.S. fueling instability through economic sabotage
In addition
to the media strategies used to promote foreign-led regime change in
both nations, the Syrian and Venezuelan leadership have also had to
contend with economic sabotage, as well as foreign funding of
opposition forces to the tune of millions of dollars.
In
Venezuela, the U.S. is estimated to have spent between $50 to $60
million since Chávez’s election to bolster the country’s
right-wing opposition in hopes that they will win elections.
Former U.S.
President Barack Obama alone dedicated $5 million to “support
political competition-building efforts” in Venezuela. The U.S.
Senate introduced new legislation last week that will provide an
additional $20 million for “democracy promotion” efforts in
Venezuela. However, some of these efforts have involved right-wing
politicians and their affiliates paying protesters in cash to
violently escalate what would otherwise be largely peaceful
opposition rallies.
In Syria,
the U.S. has been openly funding opposition forces for most of the
conflict, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent to arm and train
Syria’s so-called “moderate rebels.”
In addition,
both nations have been targeted by U.S. sanctions, some of which have
driven Venezuela into an economic downturn. In 2015, the U.S. accused
Venezuela’s government of being a “national security threat”
and announced sanctions against several government officials as a
result. More recently, in February, Trump sanctioned Venezuela’s
vice-President, calling him a “drug kingpin” without supplying
concrete evidence. Several U.S. senators are now seeking further
sanctions against Venezuela.
Businesses
associated with the U.S.-funded opposition have also been accused of
intentionally creating scarcity with the goal of fueling unrest that
could destabilize the government, a tactic that was also used against
the Allende government in Chile in the 1970s.
Yet, the
most damage has come from the manipulation oil prices, a concerted
effort led by the U.S. and its ally Saudi Arabia. The artificial
lowering of oil prices presents several benefits for the U.S.-Saudi
alliance due to the economic harm it inflicts on the Saudi’s
oil-producing competitors – chief among them Iran, Russia and
Venezuela. These are all countries that the U.S. seeks to contain.
Seeing as oil represents 90% of Venezuelan exports, its economy has
been especially hard-hit.
Syria has
also been the target of U.S. sanctions, the most recent of which took
place in late April when the U.S. targeted 271 Syrians who were
allegedly involved in manufacturing chemical weapons that the U.S.
claims were used by the Assad government against civilians in Syria’s
Idlib Province earlier that month. However, these claims have proven
to be dubious according to evidence that has been uncovered since the
attack, as well as the fact that no independent investigation into
the incident has taken place.
However,
these are only the latest sanctions imposed on the embattled nation
as U.S. and E.U. sanctions have targeted the basic needs of everyday
Syrians, not their national leaders.
As Rania
Khalek noted in an article for the Intercept:
“Internal
United Nations assessments obtained by The Intercept reveal that U.S.
and European sanctions are punishing ordinary Syrians and crippling
aid work during the largest humanitarian emergency since World War
II. The sanctions and war have destabilized every sector of Syria’s
economy, transforming a once self-sufficient country into an
aid-dependent nation. But aid is hard to come by, with sanctions
blocking access to blood safety equipment, medicines, medical
devices, food, fuel, water pumps, spare parts for power plants, and
more.”
Ultimately,
the goal of economic sabotage in both Venezuela and Syria is to
create an economic situation so desperate that the people turn on
their national leadership, blaming them for the nations’ financial
woes instead of those who imposed sanctions or carried out other
forms of economic warfare.
In addition,
the involvement of the U.S. in both conflicts is largely driven by
the U.S.’ intention of keeping key fossil fuel resources out of the
hands of Russia. In the case of Venezuela, the recently introduced
Senate bill to give $20 million to the Venezuelan opposition makes
this clear.
From a
recent MintPress report:
“Within
the text of the bill, concerns are raised regarding Venezuelan
state-owned oil company PDVSA and its transactions with Rosneft, a
Russian state-owned oil company. As TeleSur noted: “fearful that
PDVSA could default on its $4- and $5-billion dollar loans from
Rosneft, regardless of Venezuela’s steadfast debt repayments, the
bill warned that Rosneft could come into control of PDVSA’s U.S.
subsidiary, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, which ‘controls critical
energy infrastructure in 19 States in the United States.’” Seeing
as Russia has already seized Venezuelan oil for unpaid bills despite
their political alliance, this fear is not unfounded.”
The Syrian
conflict also involves competing gas pipeline interests. One of the
pipelines, which favors the interests of U.S. allies, was outright
rejected by Assad, who wanted to protect the interest of Russia,
Syria’s greatest ally.
As The
Guardian reported in 2013:
“Assad
refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey that would
run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with
Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on
to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit
crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was ‘to protect the
interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of
natural gas.’”
While
conventional understanding suggests that the conflicts in Syria and
Venezuela are wildly different, a closer examination of the nuances
of the current crises shows that U.S.-led regime change efforts,
whether covert or overt, often involve using the same tactics in
order to ensure the same overarching motive – global dominance.
***
Source,
links, videos:
Read
also:
Comments
Post a Comment